イラン立憲革命と地域社會 : ギーラーン州アンジョマンを中心に

Faced with the increasing development of anjomans in the capital and (major cities, in May 1907 the First Iranian National Assembly promulgated the law of provincial anjomans (qanun-e anjoman-ha-ye eyalati o velayati). This law classified anjomans into two types: "official" anjomans, which were invested with auxiliary functions to the local administration, and "unofficial" or "popular" anjomans. With the exception of Adharba'ijan, little research was been devoted to these official provincial anjomans. This paper discusses some aspects of the provincial anjoman of Gilan as a case study. Using as a source base local newspapers of that era, such as Anjoman-e Melli-ye Velayati-ye Gilan Gilan (both published by the provincial anjoman itself), Kheyr ol-Kalam Nasim-e Shemal and Mojahed, I conclude the following: 1) The topics debated by the anjoman can be divided into two categories the general problems of the province, on the one hand, and on the other hand, individual claims for redress of oppression and injustice suffered under the authorities. Despite efforts to mediate between the populace and the provincial authorities, the anjoman were unable to devise satisfactory solutions to certain subtle problems. Most of the difficulties resulted from the seizure and monopolization of leadership by certain influences, as well as the lack of both an executive organization and a stable financial base. 2) Criticism of the anjoman focussed on its legitimacy with both supporters and opponents sharing the view that the provincial anjoman should be instated as an "official" institution representing the province. Behind the dispute over whether Gilan corresponded to an eyalat or a velayat, lay the apprehension, especially apparent among the district (boluk) dwellers, that the newly formed anjoman might close the anjomans they themselves had set up. At the same time, it was the absence of district delegates from the provincial anjoman that increased the people's doubts of its legitimacy. In contrast to the compatible relationship that existed between the anjoman and the Mojahedin group of Rasht, the latter was keenly criticized by an anjoman called Abol-Fazl, who was supported by the office of governor-general by Zahir od-Doule, however, this anjoman also came to support the standpoint of the provincial anjoman. 3) Although it is true that the controversy over the constitutional regime that took place in Tehran sometimes drew the attention of the provincial populace, these latter in general were more interested in the improvement of their daily lives and the redress of injustice and despotism. Such assertions of personal or class interest were a serious threat to the existing social structure, but these appear to have been focussed on the morality of individuals who were deemed to be corrupt or despotic, rather than on the social structures themselves.